Aye this seems to be the problem with the campaign, not the "risque" pun
but the whole "what is that meant to mean?" problem. Pretty couples poses
under flag.... Uh-huh, and? It's meant to attract visitors/new members to a website called gay,com - what does this website offer? Naked men posing in flags? Arty photography? See what I mean? Sounds like the ad agency is unsure of what the campaigns goal really is, as well as this journalist at Inside Bay Area:

In any world, Gay.com's latest advertising campaign misses the mark

Whichever world I'm in, the campaign doesn't seem like a good idea. Not because I don't want to see anyone in bed, straight or gay (which I don't), or anyone under a flag, whether it's American, Polish or one of those suburban holiday-themed ones (which I really don't).

It has nothing to do with gay vs. straight, patriot vs. traitor, shocking vs. coddling. Instead, it's because the ad campaign is completely off-point.

As I understand it, the issue that's been on the table of late, for both gay proponents and opponents, is about marriage, not about intimacy. And the issue is with the word "marriage." One side has imbued the word with God, church and biblical connotations. The other side just knows it's the only word to use that represents what they need to have to have equal rights. Same sex unions simply don't have the same rights that marriages do. Hence, the inequity, hence, the conundrum.

In my admittedly straight opinion, it's a shame that the Gay.com ad alludes to none of this. Because quite likely, it will alienate the very community from whom they're seeking empathy by reaffirming that tired stereotype that a segment of society subscribes to: that gay men are only interested in sex.